On Sunday 10 June 2001 20:15, Gary Weber wrote:
> The question is, and I promise this is the very last time I post it: given
> 9 hard drives dedicated for RAID5, should data reside on 6 drives via
> volume group A and indexes on the other 3 drives via volume group B, or
> should data and indexes
Gary,
Here is where we have to know more details.
a 9 drive array on a single channel sounds like your peak I/O rate for
reads would be throttled by the controller channel speed. Now, if the
SCSI interface is ultra 160/m, and the drive support a sustained rate of
20 MB/sec - you're not pinched.
Indeed, Paul. Very good points.
Gary - you're asking us to determine the number of bags we'll need at the
supermarket without knowing what we're going to buy. If we had IO-stats for your
datafiles/tablespaces, ie reads/writes and their size, and your availability
requirements on the system, we co
Mogens, the super-market analogy does not apply - this is for SQL Server
database. I'm not sure how far I'll be able to tweak that rdbms, hence my
question did not contain many details - it was simply a request for
opinions.
Btw, to sum up current responses:
Option 1: split 9 drives to separate d
This actually depends on the drives, if they are cheetahs, yeah you will be
pinched. But if it is anything but perhaps not.
I would hope they would be, but very possible they are not.
"Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if
both are frozen."
Christopher R. Sp
